Defense Rock Solid But Offense a Work in Progress

[stevied]

The Tigers defense was outstanding yesterday with Rochow, Eisenhuth and Taylor leading the way. What was obvious was that there was excellent line speed and good communication to support the clearly improved structures. It was a fantastic team effort and shows how much they want to play for each other and the coach. However, despite some early offloads and late sparkle, I thought our overall attack was pedestrian. Losing Reynolds didn't help but, once again, our last tackle options were very limited. Benji got us some repeat sets, something Brooks seems incapable of doing, and Tui had some nice touches but, generally speaking, we seemed bereft of ideas. I thought Packer and Matulino were both good at getting over the advantage line but the three I mentioned for their defense were really quite ineffective with the ball in hand. Eisenhuth and Taylor are slow and seem incapable of breaking a tackle or bending the line. I really think that eventually, we need to promote one or two forwards from the ISP team, starting with Felise and Sue. Also, I thought Tui looked overweight and slow despite displaying ball playing skills. I would consider putting Thompson back to fullback and elevating Nofo, once Ivan is satisfied that he's worked on his tackling. Finally, I think Marsters should be an edge backrower, not a centre. Unfortunately, we don't have an ready replacements for him or Kev because Milne didn't do enough to deserve a promotion yesterday.

 

[kingbrooks]

Attack should get better with a few things:

1) Liddle returning adds some spark. To me Godinet looked completely lost, running a few steps before passing etc (Must have been different in the trial).
2) Aloai will add some punch as a hard hitting 2nd rower.
3) Nofolomua if he comes back, adds some extra punch running the ball back that the rest of our backs don't have.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

I would rather solid defence with clunky attack, than solid attack with clunky defence.

 

[Sco77y]

I would rather solid defence with clunky attack, than solid attack with clunky defence.

Definitely.. Something which has been the opposite of that for years.

Things can easily improve from here - team gelling more over time, simply from more game experience with each week. Our ISP side also looked rock solid yesterday and we have some good talent to choose from there if need be. Sue will be back, he actually looked pretty good yesterday, then Liddle, and if Nofa can improve his defence he’ll add more to our attack as well if he comes back into the side.

 

[happy_tiger]

I would rather solid defence with clunky attack, than solid attack with clunky defence.

Great call GNR

Having a great defence will win you more games than attack will

Defence wins premierships

 

[Tweed_Tiger]

Defence is much harder to teach than attacking plays. So many more variables with it requiring so many more people to make correct decisions/technique and attitude especially when you are tired.

I dont think we were bad in attack, we were definitely clunky which was to be expected in round 1 and Reynolds out the day before the game. The attack will improve over the next 2 months I just hope we can keep up solid defence.

 

[stevied]

I would rather solid defence with clunky attack, than solid attack with clunky defence.

I can't disagree with that. I'm certainly not saying that offense is more important. Just giving my opinion that our attack needs fine tuning and that a couple of small selection tweaks could make a difference. It will be good to see Alouai, Sue, Liddle and Nofa in the side but what we also need is an injection of speed, especially in the backs…I also agree that, once the combinations gel, offense will flow...

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

You can build some wins around defence, as the teams warms into the season the attack will come. We won't win anything with the paper thin defence we have had in recent seasons.

 

[stevied]

Correct.

 

[yeti]

Certainly can't expect attack to be fine tuned in game 1\. It takes all teams time to get their timing right in attack. We could expect it will take even longer for us with so many new players. Mid season before we see it at its best. Then we'll know.

 

[larrycorowa]

Attack should get better with a few things:

1) Liddle returning adds some spark. To me Godinet looked completely lost, running a few steps before passing etc (Must have been different in the trial).
2) Aloai will add some punch as a hard hitting 2nd rower.
3) Nofolomua if he comes back, adds some extra punch running the ball back that the rest of our backs don't have.

Plus a few more weeks with new combinations and added confidence if we can put together a few more dolphins d performances

 

[innsaneink]

While it was very frustrating for me out there yesterday while we had the ball….i really want to see consistency with that type of defense.
It was good...we need to defend.like that more often than not...

 

[WT2K]

I would rather solid defence with clunky attack, than solid attack with clunky defence.

Yep, exactly this. Well said, GNR.

 

[upthetigers]

Let's not go making drastic changes. Lolo gets first crack at fullback. Let's hope he is less rocks then diamonds with his goal kicking and injects himself more in to the game as he improves his fitness. If that doesn't happen then Thompson to fullback but he deserves a chance. This is Brooks 5th year in first grade he has had plenty!

 

[supercoach]

Defence was great, but a few times we shifted the ball wide in hope of getting around them and with our speed was never going to work. I just think we should have kept going up the middle where we were causing them real grief

 

[2041]

I would rather solid defence with clunky attack, than solid attack with clunky defence.

Great call GNR

Having a great defence will win you more games than attack will

Defence wins premierships

I think the recent history of the comp suggests you probably need both. Other than the 2010 Dragons, who were a bit of a freak in many, many ways, basically every winning team is among the elite in attack and defence.

This is by points scored/conceded so a bit crude, but it makes the point:
2017 - Melbourne: best attack, best defence
2016 - Sharks: 3rd best attack, 3rd best defence
2015 - Cowboys: 2nd best attack, 5th best defence
2014 - Souths: 3rd best attack, best defence
2013 - Roosters: best attack, best defence
2012 - Storm: 2nd best attack, best defence
2011 - Manly: best attack, 2nd best defence
2010 - Dragons: 8th best attack, best defence

 

[Roar_Power]

I didn't think MWZ looked overly flash in that game - he was solid but is fairly average for his position in my opinion. If Nofo sorts his defensive issues, he will take his place for sure…

 

[AusTigers]

Tigers best defence so far witj only 8 points conceded

 

[jirskyr]

I would rather solid defence with clunky attack, than solid attack with clunky defence.

Great call GNR

Having a great defence will win you more games than attack will

Defence wins premierships

I think the recent history of the comp suggests you probably need both. Other than the 2010 Dragons, who were a bit of a freak in many, many ways, basically every winning team is among the elite in attack and defence.

This is by points scored/conceded so a bit crude, but it makes the point:
2017 - Melbourne: best attack, best defence
2016 - Sharks: 3rd best attack, 3rd best defence
2015 - Cowboys: 2nd best attack, 5th best defence
2014 - Souths: 3rd best attack, best defence
2013 - Roosters: best attack, best defence
2012 - Storm: 2nd best attack, best defence
2011 - Manly: best attack, 2nd best defence
2010 - Dragons: 8th best attack, best defence

Did you look any wider than the premiers? Not being sarky, I mean I did an analysis a few years ago and from memory the better your defence, the more likely you are in the Top 8.

Sure top attacking sides are there too, but being a Top 8 defensive side had more bearing on a team actually making the Top 8 than attack.

You've clearly shown when it comes to being the premiers however, both attack and defence need to be near the best.

 

[2041]

I would rather solid defence with clunky attack, than solid attack with clunky defence.

Great call GNR

Having a great defence will win you more games than attack will

Defence wins premierships

I think the recent history of the comp suggests you probably need both. Other than the 2010 Dragons, who were a bit of a freak in many, many ways, basically every winning team is among the elite in attack and defence.

This is by points scored/conceded so a bit crude, but it makes the point:
2017 - Melbourne: best attack, best defence
2016 - Sharks: 3rd best attack, 3rd best defence
2015 - Cowboys: 2nd best attack, 5th best defence
2014 - Souths: 3rd best attack, best defence
2013 - Roosters: best attack, best defence
2012 - Storm: 2nd best attack, best defence
2011 - Manly: best attack, 2nd best defence
2010 - Dragons: 8th best attack, best defence

Did you look any wider than the premiers? Not being sarky, I mean I did an analysis a few years ago and from memory the better your defence, the more likely you are in the Top 8.

Sure top attacking sides are there too, but being a Top 8 defensive side had more bearing on a team actually making the Top 8 than attack.

You've clearly shown when it comes to being the premiers however, both attack and defence need to be near the best.

TBH I only spent a couple of minutes on it - it wasn't meant to be detailed analysis. That said, the comment was "defence wins premierships" so I don't think it was unreasonable to look purely at teams that, y'know, won the premiership. If we add your analysis we might actually be left with a conclusion that's even more contradictory to the original claim - something like: "defence gets you to the finals, but to win the premiership you have to have attack as well".